Dissent vs. loyalty: India’s hardening stance on diasporic critics

By Gajanan Khergamker  

India’s decision to revoke Dr. Nitasha Kaul’s Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card has sparked polarized reactions—ranging from liberal outrage to nationalist approval. Stripping away the emotional rhetoric, this incident underscores a broader shift: a new India that is unapologetically sovereign, politically selective, and increasingly intolerant of perceived ideological threats, even from its diaspora.  

Dr. Kaul, a Kashmiri-origin academic, was set to attend a parliamentary hearing on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, intending to amplify Kashmiri voices and highlight alleged human rights violations post-Article 370’s abrogation. However, just before her visit, her OCI status was revoked, with authorities citing “anti-India activities” and misrepresentation of purpose.  

At first glance, this move may seem excessive—perhaps even authoritarian—when judged by liberal democratic standards. Yet, positioning it as an anomaly in global governance would be misleading. Across the world, sovereign states routinely revoke visas, residency, or special status cards under opaque premises of national interest.  

The United States, long regarded as a bastion of free speech, has denied entry to individuals based on ideological beliefs and national security concerns. Notably, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was barred from entering the U.S. for nearly a decade due to his alleged involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots—a restriction lifted only after his 2014 electoral victory. Similarly, the U.K. has maintained a list of “undesirable persons,” denying entry to figures accused of extremism or hate speech, often with little legal recourse. Academic and political figures from Palestine, Iran, and India have faced visa rejections simply for holding views inconvenient to host nations.  

India’s justification for revoking Dr. Kaul’s OCI—her “political activism against India’s interests”—aligns with this global norm of controlling domestic narratives from foreign ideological interference, even when the individuals involved have deep ancestral ties to the country.  

However, this marks a departure from India’s traditionally measured diplomacy. The Nehruvian idealism of post-Independence India welcomed dissenting voices, valuing democratic virtue. Today, Modi’s India is assertive, muscular, and unhesitant in wielding state power to shape its global optics. Human rights critiques—especially from foreign soil—are no longer seen as constructive dissent but as geopolitical subversion. Under this logic, diaspora privileges like OCI cards come tethered to expectations of loyalty rather than legal entitlements.  

Other democracies have taken similar measures. France has expelled imams and revoked asylum statuses over alleged threats to “republican values.” Germany has deported clerics without public evidence, citing security concerns. Australia has revoked visas based on public behavior deemed inconsistent with “Australian character.” Even Canada has cracked down on individuals supporting Khalistani sentiments when their actions risk diplomatic ties.  

Seen through this lens, India’s decision is neither exceptional nor uniquely aggressive—it reflects a broader trend of democracies policing their ideological borders with increasing vigor. What sets India apart, however, is its unabashed approach. Western nations often frame such actions in bureaucratic language, masking their political intent. India under Modi, in contrast, openly wields political rhetoric and state power to define terms of engagement, even with its diaspora.  

This shift signals a recalibration of India’s soft power strategy. The diasporic Indian voice—once celebrated for lobbying international sympathy—is now scrutinized for allegiance. Being Indian, even for foreign passport holders, is no longer merely a cultural or emotional identity; it is now a political position. Step beyond the acceptable bounds of criticism, and symbolic bridges to Bharat may be severed.  

Yet, this transformation should not be dismissed outright. It is a natural outcome of India’s growing global influence. A confident nation inevitably seeks to control its image. But where is the threshold? How far can ideological policing go before it begins to mirror the very authoritarianism India critiques elsewhere?  

As Nitasha Kaul stands excluded from India—not just physically but symbolically—her case offers more than an academic’s estrangement. It is a testament to the evolving contours of Indian nationalism: one that demands allegiance over affection, alignment over ambiguity. While the West may critique this shift, its own record suggests that India is merely following a well-worn path—albeit with a saffron flourish.  

---

A version of this article was first published in The Draft